Added to my sidebar. Highly recommended for people curious about the Anglican Way.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
Yet more evidence of the growing angst in Europe over the prospect of civil war:
-- Britain warned to expect far-right ‘violence’ as anti-Muslim hatred becomes ‘mainstream’. (Now there's an unbiased title of an article for you. :) )
1) This is one reason among many that I'm a trad Anglican. It's earthy, the furthest thing from gnosticism;
2) My wife and I intend to retire soon in this area of the country (Western North Carolina). I just may have to look up this church. (St. Patrick's Anglican, APA).
Read the lines. And between the lines. War is coming to Europe.
When I was in seminary I belonged to a Christian apologetics and activist organization called Christian Research Associates. One of the things I developed for the organization was a lecture on the New Age Movement that analyzed the movement historically and theologically. In the course of my research, I happened upon a number of sources pertaining to the spiritual and social meaning of the Babylonian ziggurat, both to the ancient Babylonians and to modern occultists who have made use of it in their writings. The text of Genesis 11: 1-9 is the account of prototypical ziggurat - the Tower of Babel - as interpreted theologically by its Hebrew author.
I have referred to the beliefs and activism of certain New Age liberals, modern humanists, and political elite with respect to the creation of a one-world government as the "Babylonian Impulse", hence my use of the term in the title of this blog entry.
Several years ago I was pleased to find that the late traditionalist conservative writer Laurence Auster was thinking similarly about the Babylonian Impulse, as evidenced in a two-part article he wrote for Front Page Magazine entitled, How Liberal Christianity Promotes Open Borders and One-Worldism. For those of you unfamiliar with Auster, he was a Jew who converted to Anglican Christianity (Episcopal Church) whose writings focused mainly on immigration and the heresy of multiculturalism.
Yes, I say the "heresy" of multiculturalism, because as Auster shows in this article, and as these writers have opined, multiculturalism stands in opposition to the biblical doctrine of nations, the center of which is arguably the Genesis text cited above. God means to keep nations separate. In the Genesis text, the borders are linguistic; in other biblical texts, the borders are physical, and nothing about the New Covenant or the catholicity of the Church changes any of this.
As indicated by the title of his article, Auster's focus is on liberal Christianity, which of course is a fellow traveler with New Age liberals, modern humanists, and the political elite. But Auster turns his sights on the Church of Rome as well, because of its irresponsible -- and yes, heretical -- multiculturalism. Here is the salient section of the article about the Babylonian Impulse:
The above thoughts lead to a surprising conclusion. Most liberal Christians today affirm that creating culturally diverse societies is the moral, Godly, and just thing to do—the more diverse, the more just and Godly. But if it is our purpose to discern God's purpose, doesn't it seem far more likely that God would oppose the creation of multicultural, majority-less societies? He would oppose them, first, because they rob human beings of the stable cultural environments and the concrete networks of belonging that are essential conditions of personal and social flourishing; and, second, he would oppose them because they lead to unresolvable conflict and disorder. In opening America's borders to the world, our political leaders are not following any divine scheme, but are indulging an all‑too‑human conceit: "We can create a totally just society," they tell themselves. "We can stamp out cultural particularities and commonalities that have taken centuries or millennia to develop. We can erect a new form of society based on nothing but an idea. We can ignore racial and cultural differences and the propensity to inter‑group conflict that has ruled all of human history. We can create an earthly utopia, a universal nation."
All of which brings us to the biblical account of Babel. The comparison of multicultural America to the Tower of Babel has become such a cliché in the hands of conservative columnists over the last 20 years that a true understanding of this parable has been lost. Indeed, as I will show, the conservative, or rather the neoconservative, understanding of this parable is the exact opposite of its true meaning.
As told in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, the human race, in a burst of arrogant pride, attempts to construct a perfect human society purely by their own will—a tower "with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." Mankind hopes that this one‑world society will prevent them from being divided into separate societies. But this is not what God wants. "The Lord came down to look at the city and tower which man had built, and the Lord said, 'If, as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing that they may propose to do will be out of their reach.'" God does not want man to build a universal city, because that would lead man to worship himself instead of God. So God confuses—that is, he diversifies—men's language so that they cannot understand one another, and then he "scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth."
It becomes clear that the Tower of Babel is not, as neoconservatives have often said, a multicultural society which breaks down because it lacks a common culture based on universalist ideals. On the contrary, the Tower of Babel represents the neoconservatives' own political ideal—the Universal Nation. And the moral of the story is that God does not want men to have a single Universal Nation, he wants them to have distinct nations. "That is why it was called Babel," Genesis continues, "because there the Lord confounded the speech of the whole earth." But that's not all. Having divided men's language into many different languages, God does not want these many languages to co‑exist in the same society: "And from there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth."
Thus God rejects the universal society, where the whole human race lives together speaking the same language, and he also (implicitly) rejects the multicultural society, where the whole human race lives together speaking different languages. God wants the human race to belong to a plurality of separate and finite societies, each with its own culture and language. This providential system for the organization of human life allows for the appropriate expression of cultural variety, even as, by demonstrating that human things are not absolute, it restrains and channels man's self-aggrandizing instincts.
And this view of mankind is not limited to the Book of Genesis, as a supposedly primitive account of an early, tribal period of history when mankind presumably needed a more rudimentary form of social organization. If we go from the first book of the Bible to its last book, The Revelation of John, we find, to our astonishment, that God's plan still includes separate nations. In Chapter 21, after the final judgment on sinful humanity has occurred, after the first heaven and the first earth have passed away and a new heaven and a new earth have appeared, after the holy city, New Jerusalem, has come down out of heaven, a dwelling for God himself on earth, and after the total transformation of the world, when even the sun and moon are no longer needed to light the city because the glory of God is the light of it, and the Lamb is the lamp of it, even then
... the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it....
And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
In the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city, there are still distinct nations, and kings of nations, and these are the glories of humanity which are brought before the throne of God, and there transfigured in the light of Christ. Mankind, following the end of the world, is still providentially constituted of separate nations, which give it its character and distinctiveness, even as, for example, our earth is constituted of separate continents, islands, mountain ranges, and valleys, which give it its shape and its meaning. The physical earth is not a homogenous mass consisting of nothing but "equal" individual particles, and neither, in the biblical view, is mankind.
Very sound ethno-theology, this. We need to stop shying away from it for fear of being called "racists." The Church is to evince more courage than that.
For the full article:
To that heaven which belongs to the catholic church, I shall never come, except I go by the way of the catholic church, by former Ideas, former examples, former patterns, to believe according to ancient beliefs, to pray according to ancient forms, to preach according to former meditations. - John Donne, The Works of John Donne, Vol.3, Sermon LXVI
The pacifists are wrong, and that's all there is to it.
If we cannot produce Launcelots, humanity falls into two sections - those who can deal in blood and iron but cannot be "meek in hall", and those who are "meek in hall" but useless in battle - for the third class, who are both brutal in peace and cowardly in war, need not here be discussed. When this dissociation of the two halves of Launcelot occurs, history becomes a horribly simple affair. . . . The man who combines both characters - the knight - is not a work of nature but of art; of that art which has human beings, instead of canvas or marble, for its medium.
In the world today there is a "liberal" or "enlightened" tradition which regards the combative side of man's nature as a pure, atavistic evil, and scouts the chivalrous sentiment as part of the "false glamour" of war. And there is also a neo-heroic tradition which scouts the chivalrous sentiment as a weak sentimentality, which would raise from its grave (its shallow and unquiet grave!) the pre-Christian ferocity of Achilles by a "modern invocation". . . .
(However), there is still life in the tradition which the Middle Ages inaugurated. But the maintenance of that life depends, in part, on knowing that the knightly character is art not nature - something that needs to be achieved, not something that can be relied upon to happen. And this knowledge is specially necessary as we grow more democratic. In previous centuries the vestiges of chivalry were kept alive by a specialized class, from whom they spread to other classes partly by imitation and partly by coercion. Now, it seems, the people must either be chivalrous on its own resources, or else choose between the two remaining alternatives of brutality and softness. . . . The ideal embodied in Launcelot is "escapism" is a sense never dreamed of by those who use that word; it offers the only possible escape from a world divided between wolves who do not understand, and sheep who cannot defend, the things which make life desirable. . . . (C.S. Lewis, "The Necessity of Chivalry".)
Fear and trembling because of the very real prospect of being misunderstood. But a foray it must be, since present realities in Western Europe and the Anglosphere will eventually compel the Church to open up a frank and serious, which is to say platitude-free, discussion about it.
First, from an Orthodox perspective, and as Anglicanism like Orthodoxy is organized along national lines, of special interest to us: Orthodox Ethno-Theology and the Forced Demographic Replacement of Eastern Europe;
Next, a better-quality article written from a Reformed perspective: A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism;
Is there a "biblical doctrine of nations"? The platitudinous, politically correct answer is "no". Since I've so described the "no" answer, you'll know what my answer is. If I'm right, it's time we start talking about it. By my lights, it is eminently possible to answer "yes" and not commit oneself to a racist position.
This is a video clip from Evangelical Phillip McCart, pastor of an outfit called Grace Collective Church (Baptist), waxing eloquent on Hebrews 12:1, with all the latest AV media, as only an Evangelical personality cult homilist can do. Sadly, it was brought to my attention with approbation by an Anglican friend:
I'm just gonna leave this here. #ToughAsNailsPosted by Phillip McCart on Monday, January 25, 2016
I attended an Evangelical church service several years ago where the same message came across from the pulpit: If you're making preparations for yourself and your family, you are most likely betraying the subchristian essence of your purported life in Christ.
Bollocks, I say. And to my Anglican friend, if he's looking in, this stuff isn't Anglican.
I find it intriguing that McCart mentions the plight of Syrian Christians. Unmentioned by Pastor McCart is that the suffering Syrian Christians are fighting back with force of arms. That, at a minimum, means the strategic stockpiling of weapons, ammo, and the material necessities of life. I wonder if Pastor McCart would cast similar aspersions at these two Syrian soldiers bearing AK-47s and accoutrements:
Or this Pakistani Anglican guarding his church with force of arms and being saluted by Bishop Brian Iverach.
Or this Christian man from the United States who has gone to the Middle East to fight ISIS:
I grow so weary of these pietist preachers spouting what is in essence dispensationalist theology, most of whom in all likelihood have never served in the Armed Forces and who have probably never read a lick about Christian resistance theory or D.A. Carson's indispensable book Exegetical Fallacies. If they had read that book and taken its content seriously, they would never engage in the either/or fallacy (we either submit to martyrdom or take up arms) and the non sequitur fallacy (biblical verses about the inevitability of persecution commit us to Christian pacifism).
Here endeth the rant.
A particularly juicy excerpt:
The Anglican Communion consists of approximately 80 million people, only 1.8 million of whom are Episcopalians (down from 3.6 million in the sixties). There are many Anglicans in the Anglophone countries, of course, but most Anglicans live in far-off lands. There are, obviously, homosexual communicants in those lands: homosexuals may constitute about 2 percent of any population. But those lands don’t do homosexual marriage. And they aren’t going to change their ways any time soon. We’ll have peace in the Middle East first.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said about homosexuals, more or less, that he felt their pain: “For me it’s a constant source of deep sadness, the number of people who are persecuted for their sexuality,” he said after encountering gay and lesbian protesters at the meeting of the primates. “I wanted to take this opportunity to say how sorry I am for the hurt and pain, in the past and present, the church has caused.”
Maybe. But as they say on the debating circuit, “Name three” — name three people in the United States who have been persecuted for their sexuality. Perhaps Jack Phillips, who was fined $135,000 because he refused to bake a wedding cake for a queer couple. No. Wait a minute. He was persecuted because he was normal and wouldn’t kowtow to the zeitgeist, which said he had to serve homosexuals.
And we can only hope the presiding bishop wasn’t feeling any pain for Susan Russell, ’scuse me, “The Rev.” Susan Russell, a senior associate rector at All Saints Church in Pasadena. She said sanctions would not change her position: “As a lifelong Episcopalian and a married lesbian priest, I think [the Episcopal Church’s suspension is] not only an acceptable cost, it’s a badge of honor in some ways.” It wasn’t reported whether she told the Anglican bishops where they could stuff their mitres.
This moment, these moments, have been long in coming. In 1960, James Pike, the Episcopal bishop of California, said the doctrine of the Trinity was “outdated, incomprehensible and nonessential.” In 1961 he said the Virgin Birth of Christ was a “primitive myth.” The Episcopal Church decided, unwisely, not to try Pike for heresy and defrock him. That was the beginning of the end. It meant that, doctrinally, anything goes. And since that time, a lot has.
The Archbishop of Canterbury may see homosexuals as persecuted individuals. But it is more accurate to see them as marauding vandals, come to destroy the icons and the tablets. The doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion have been well established for centuries. People who want homosexual marriage to be considered normal (or don’t believe in the Virgin Birth or the Trinity) should join — should have joined — a different church. The James Pikes of the ’60s and the homosexuals of today set out to destroy the Episcopal Church. They are part of the left’s long march through the institutions. There is no reason whatsoever to feel sorry for them. And every reason to resist them.
Amin, Amin, Amin. The Episcopal Church's revolution on marriage is related to the apostasy of Pike, Spong, et al. as a child is related to his parents. And the radicals have clearly not finished their work.
If we're going to resist them, however, we're going to have to be "full on" in our resistance, and this means, among other things, that another child of Anglican radicalism, women's ordination, must also yield to the surgeon's scalpel.
Amidst the growing chorus of voices predicting civil war in Europe, here's a voice predicting that WWIII ma very well be fought -- and very possibly lost -- on European soil:
Speaking of his comments with Sweden’s best selling tabloid Aftonbladet, the General said the deteriorating security picture in Europe was the main factor behind his warning, indicating the Islamic State conducting military campaigns in Europe and spreading instability from the Ukraine could lead to conflict.
In possibly related news, law professor, author and blogger Glenn Reynolds ruminates darkly about what might happen here in these United States:
If voters think that they can’t vote their way out of a problem, then they may look to other solutions.
Three more articles:
Moral: Be prayed up; be prepared.
As I've written here previously, things are likely to get "froggy" in Europe and the Anglosphere because of the suicidal policies of the liberal-left power elite. Here's another video from Europe's "Identitarian" movement telling the power elite what's what. H/T reader Roger du Barry:
An earlier video from the French Identitarians:
Slick presentations, both of them, and the Hans Zimmer music in the second one is a nice touch.
Anyway, lest these resolute young folks be mistaken for neo-fascists and/or white supremacists, here's a statement from their YouTube channel:
At this point we want to thank all of you for your support. Over 75k views are simply impressing!
Unfortunately, we have to clarify some things:
1. As Identitiarians, we take a stand neither against Palestine nor Israel as we deem it irrelevant for our current struggle, which is enabling the preservation of the European identities.
2. We, as Identitarians, are ethnopluralists meaning we believe that, no matter how different people may be, they all are of equal value. Thus, we strongly oppose the notion of there being "superior" races or cultures and believe that every people and culture should have a place on earth where they can live in peace.
3. We are no "nationalists". We want to preserve our people and identity but as a logical consequence of point 2 we don't believe in there being inherently superior or inferior nations.
4. You are free to discuss in our comment section but we want you to keep it civil. We will delete any comments which advocate for any kind of violence, genocidal acts, supremacism or nationalism. Such comments not only clash with our beliefs, they are also harmful to us all.
Regards, IBD's media team
So, not neo-fascists, not racists, but they do sound like they mean business. Let us all hope and pray so.
From the Facebook page of St. Matthew's Anglican Catholic Church in Newport Beach, CA:
Welcome Bp. Grote
The Rt. Rev'd Royal Grote, Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church, will be visiting St. Matthew's today, January 24th. He will preach at the 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. services.
We have been developing a cordial ecumenical relationship with the REC. Bishop Grote attended the ACC Provincial Synod in Athens, Georgia last October. Bishop Scarlett and Fr. Blake are planning to attend Bishop Grote's diocesan synod in Texas in February. We are grateful for this growing relationship, and we welcome Bishop Grote to St. Matthew's Church.
For more information about the REC, click here: http://www.recus.org/.
I met in late July 2015 with +Stephen Scarlett, who is the Ordinary of the ACC's Diocese of the Holy Trinity and rector of St. Matthew's. He had recently attended the International Catholic Congress of Anglicans and spoke very highly of REC Bishop Ray Sutton, whom he met there, and of the REC in general. I am pleasantly surprised to see representatives of each church attending each other's synods, and I can't help wondering what all this may augur. I'm thinking it can only be good.
It appears that resolute Christian Filipinos (probably overwhelmingly Roman Catholic) are ready to do what a seemingly feckless government is not able to do. This in spite of restrictive gun laws in the Philippines. If you find yourself wondering how these militias are able to be so heavily armed given these laws, here's how. Verrrrry interesting.
Also interesting are the comments from UK citizens at the Daily Mail article, which are not only largely in support of the Christian Filipino militia, but are wistfully commenting on the need for citizen militias in the UK, and by logical extension all of Western Europe. And no wonder, given the fecklessness with which European liberal states are dealing with the Jihadist threat. In fact, "feckless" is too weak a word to describe the European policy. "Suicidal" is the better term.
What's more, a burgeoning rightist movement in Europe knows that, in fact, its "leadership" is committing demographic, cultural and political suicide, and that if Europe is to be saved, extraordinary measures will accordingly almost surely be needed to counter the Trojan Horse Jihad that the PTB have so blithely admitted into European lands. And as in the Philippines, restrictive European gun laws will not prevent freedom fighters from being armed if and when they so choose. Historian William Marina made a point of this in a 1983 essay he wrote for the periodical Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy ("Weapons, Technology and Legitimacy: The Second Amendment in Global Perspective, in Firearms and Violence." - 417, 446. The article is available online here.) The globe is literally awash in small arms, both legal and illegal, writes Marina, and "(a)s the international arms trade increases. . . more people will obtain access to guns as governments lose control over the great number of arms being traded." (Emphasis mine.)
Marina's assessment harmonizes well with that of author and military analyst John Robb, who argues that the West is entering into a period marked by the rise of "hollow" states and, consequently, the rise of "tribes" and "resilient communities" that organize locally along ideological, cultural and/or religious lines for the purpose of self-preservation. As the liberal states of Europe become increasingly hollow and incompetent, "tribes" will rise up to either take their place or form bulwarks of internal opposition that the states will not be able to eliminate.
The comments at the Daily Mail article will of course make many a European liberal-left head explode, but that's really too bad. As one commentator who goes by the name of "Shrewsbury" says of the European liberal-left:
At this point in the dialectic, no dialogue is possible with them. They live in their own universe of lies and depravity. . . .
(Any) European urge to destroy can be slaked by allowing the European to be European, while the Muslim’s urge to destroy can never be slaked, because, to achieve any peace, he must become something other than Muslim. . . .
We may even find that the liberals’ expressions of hate toward the right become actually less intemperate . . . as they begin to sense the stirrings of the monster which they have done so much to awake, and, having cried wolf a thousand times, now find themselves confronted by a dragon; and begin to realize that all their silly ranting about how awful the Right is will be of no use if they are to be confronted by a Right which really is awful.
This didn’t have to happen, the left didn’t have work so long and so frenziedly to try to destroy us, and everything we are, and everything we have, but they did, so it will happen. It is sickening and it is tragic.
I'm not convinced that the rising European right will become "really awful", especially if it can be moderated by forces such as the Le Pen family's National Front, PEGIDA in Germany and the various groups in England that stand for English nationalism. The left will continue to demonize such groups as fascist, but as Shrewsbury implies the left has lost all credibility, and their governments all political legitimacy. The fact remains that while some quarters of the European right are fascist or neo-fascist, there are a great many "new rightists" in Europe who simply want to "be European" and aren't necessarily interested in giving power to strongmen. But if Europe's liberal states do not move now, and effectively, to undo the damage they've done, well, they can expect their citizens both to be increasingly radicalized in a rightist direction and to start arming themselves.
As the comments at the Daily Mail cause the heads of European liberal-lefties to explode, so the kind of thing I write here tends to draw negative reactions from certain quarters in the Church. First, you have the Christian pacifists. They can be summarily dismissed, however, for reasons I have set forth here in other articles mainly having to do with the fact that Christianity has never been a pacifist religion.
Then there are what I call the "pietist/quietists", very spiritual and gentle folk among whom many Anglicans are numbered, but not pacifists per se, whose brows knit at reading arguments like those I post here about the legitimacy of armed resistance, etc. I would enjoin those folks simply to wake up, take note of orthodox Christian theology and Church history, stop wringing their hands like dispensationalists about the supposed inevitability of persecution, and join me in that call to arms. Christian civilization has been taking up arms against Islamic imperialism for almost a millennium and a half, and that war is far from over. Christians are taking up arms against the Jihad in the Middle East, Africa and the Phillipines. They have been forced to do so because of their proximity to Muslim lands. Not all Muslims are Jihadists, but wherever the Ummah is, there is the Jihad. Thanks to the idiotic policies of the liberal states of Western Europe and the Anglosphere, the Ummah is now entrenched there and, predictably, the Jihadis have begun to spill blood. A day may soon come when Christians in the West will have to rely on themselves instead of the state in the matter of self-preservation, and take up arms just as the their brethren in the Middle East, Africa and the Philippines have done. The time for preparation is now.
"It is your duty to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other." -- Christian Apologetics, C. S. Lewis, Easter 1945